A subsidiary of Move, Inc. bought a data lead from Nations Info, Corp. off of its HudHomesUsa.org website. The subsidiary made an outbound prerecorded call resulting in a TCPA lawsuit against Move. (Fun.)
Move, Inc. moved to compel arbitration arguing that since its subsidiary was named in the consent form–it argued the arbitration clause necessarily covered it because the whole purpose of the clause was to permit parties buying leads from the website to compel TCPA cases to arbitration.
Good argument, but the court disagreed.
In Faucett v. Move, Inc. 2024 WL 2106727 (C.D. Cal. April 22, 2024) the Court refused to enforce the arbitration clause finding that Move, Inc. was not a signatory to the agreement and could not enforce it under any theory.
Most interestingly, Move argued that a motivating purpose behind the publisher’s arbitration clause was to benefit Move because Nations Info listed Opcity —Move’s subsidiary—in the Consent Form as a company that could send marketing messages to Hud’s users. (Mot. 1–2.)
But the Court found the Terms and Consent Form were two different documents, and accepting the one did not change the scope of the other.
The Court also found equitable estoppel did not apply because Plaintiff was not moving to enforce the terms of the agreement. Quite the contrary, Plaintiff denied any arbitration (or consent) agreement existed.
So Move is stuck.
Pretty clear lesson here: lead buyers should make sure the arbitration provisions on any website they are buying leads from includes third-parties (like the buyer) as a party to the clause. Failing to do so may leave the lead buyer stuck without the ability to enforce the provision–and that can lead to a massive class action with potential exposure in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
Lead buyers are already forcing sellers to revise their flows in light of the FCC’s new one to one consent rules. So now would be a GREAT time to revisit requirements around arbitration provisions as well.
Something to think about.